What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5231031 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5231031?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $215.98 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $83.88 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $638.27 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $154.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $45.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,050.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Thermostat Cover And…: $154.72 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5231031?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5231031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11914657-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5231031 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5231031?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $215.98 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $83.88 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $638.27 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $154.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $45.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,050.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Thermostat Cover And…: $154.72 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5231031?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5231031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11914657-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5231031 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5231031 — net $3,618.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,050.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning: bathroom, ensuite, toilet, dishwasher	$215.98	Cleaning: bathroom, ensuite, toilet, dishwasher
Cleaning: curtains	$200.00	Cleaning: curtains
Carpet Cleaning	$100.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and garden work	$200.00	Lawns and garden work
Light bulbs	$83.88	Light bulbs
Repair damaged exterior stairway	$638.27	Repair damaged exterior stairway
__________________________________________________________________________________ 52310312 Replace damaged toilet seat	$154.00	__________________________________________________________________________________ 52310312 Replace damaged toilet seat
Replace missing thermostat cover and shower seals	$154.72	Replace missing thermostat cover and shower seals
Replace damaged vacuum parts	$45.00	Replace damaged vacuum parts
Repairs: damaged walls, doorways, and front door	$750.00	Repairs: damaged walls, doorways, and front door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,618.85
Bond	$4,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,618.85

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited As Agent For The Beckman Family Trust $3,618.85 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited As Agent For The Beckman Family Trust: $3,618.85 [The tenant/s]: $581.15

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Sygierycz representing Berrymans and Ms Beckman representing the owner.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 13 February 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in some respects, including the gardens and lawns, which they acknowledged during the hearing and apologised for. They did say that they did their best to scrub and clean. While the landlord obtained quotes from third parties for cleaning, the owner did the cleaning work themselves. Therefore, they are entitled to recover some compensation for their time and materials but are not entitled to recover the quoted amount because they did not incur those costs.
I have determined that the amounts ordered are fair and reasonable in the circumstances. I have included the cleaning claims for curtains and carpet in one of the bedrooms, although these claims were not articulated in the original application. However, I note that the landlord withdrew some other claims (carpet replacement), and the tenants accepted the cleaning was required.
The landlord also had to replace light bulbs which the tenants accepted.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Where damage is proved and results in items being replaced, I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord withdrew their claim for carpet replacement.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy, and I find it was more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage which I find was likely careless: a. Outside step stringers chewed by dogs and had to be replaced which involved dismantling the treads, replacing the stringers, and then fitting stairs back together. The cost to repair was $638.27. No depreciation has been applied given that the stairs should last a lifetime. b. The toilet seat cover had a crack and required replacement. The toilet was 14 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life of a toilet is 50 years. I have reduced the replacement cost of $214.18 by 28% (14/50 years) for depreciation and award $154. c. The thermostat cover was missing, and shower seals required replacement because of mould damage. The replacement costs of $154.72 are proved. d. Various walls, door frames, stairs, wardrobe doors and the front door were damaged during the tenancy with dog claw scratches and chew marks; and some dents where the wall gib and paper has pulled away. The landlord obtained a quote for the work of $1056 plus GST but the owner decided to do the work themselves. Therefore, they are entitled to recover some compensation for their time and materials but are not entitled to recover the quoted amount because they did not incur those costs. The owner provided evidence that she spent $226.60 on materials from Resene and she believes she spent a further 15-20 hours doing the repair work including plastering, sanding and patch painting. I award $750 in total to cover labour and materials which I consider fair and reasonable in the circumstances. This also covers compensation for scratches on the front cedar door which the landlord has yet to remedy. No depreciation has been applied to paint work because it was only patch painting areas repaired not full redecoration. e. The central vacuum system was blocked. The vacuum specialist determined that the telescopic wand and floor tool were both severely blocked and the floor tool was rusted indicating the vacuum has been used to pick up water. The accessories need to be replaced at a quoted cost of $225. I am satisfied on the evidence that the blockage likely occurred during the tenancy. The vacuum system is 14 years old and the accessories should be fully depreciated. However, I consider the landlord is entitled to some compensation for the unintended early replacement. I award $45 being 20% of the replacement costs.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord has expressed their view that the tenants were overall good tenants and agreed to most of the claims apart from one or two queries which is reasonable. They consider that the tenants should be granted name suppression because there was no intentional or deliberate damage caused by them. The tenants also seek suppression.
Section 95A(1) RTA provides that Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Conversely, where a party does not “wholly or substantially succeed” suppression should not be granted.
However, section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published.
Generally, there is a presumption that there is public interest in publishing the identities of parties who breach the RTA or their tenancy agreement so that future tenants and landlords are forewarned.
The issue here is whether there are factors that might rebut the presumption of publication. Some of the more serious damage was caused by the tenants’ 2 dogs who were at the tenancy with the landlord’s consent. Both parties acknowledge that the tenants offered (and the landlord accepted) an extra $50/week above the advertised rent in order to secure the tenancy because the landlords were not at first keen to permit 2 dogs and the tenants’ large family. The rent was in advance for the entire tenancy until the end, when there was some confusion about the end date. I am also satisfied that damage was not caused deliberately or intentionally by the tenants. More importantly they were candid in their evidence at the hearing and quick to accept responsibility where appropriate. It was also not unreasonable for the parties to have some reasonable queries about liability for issues determined by the Tribunal. Also, in this case the landlord will be fully reimbursed for the claims from the bond. The tenants have also defended some of the claims and will receive a portion of their bond back.
After careful consideration of all the above factors, I am satisfied that there is no public interest in publishing the names of the tenants. Suppression is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5231031 — net $3,618.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,050.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning: bathroom, ensuite, toilet, dishwasher	$215.98	Cleaning: bathroom, ensuite, toilet, dishwasher
Cleaning: curtains	$200.00	Cleaning: curtains
Carpet Cleaning	$100.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and garden work	$200.00	Lawns and garden work
Light bulbs	$83.88	Light bulbs
Repair damaged exterior stairway	$638.27	Repair damaged exterior stairway
__________________________________________________________________________________ 52310312 Replace damaged toilet seat	$154.00	__________________________________________________________________________________ 52310312 Replace damaged toilet seat
Replace missing thermostat cover and shower seals	$154.72	Replace missing thermostat cover and shower seals
Replace damaged vacuum parts	$45.00	Replace damaged vacuum parts
Repairs: damaged walls, doorways, and front door	$750.00	Repairs: damaged walls, doorways, and front door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,618.85
Bond	$4,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,618.85

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited As Agent For The Beckman Family Trust $3,618.85 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited As Agent For The Beckman Family Trust: $3,618.85 [The tenant/s]: $581.15

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Sygierycz representing Berrymans and Ms Beckman representing the owner.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 13 February 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in some respects, including the gardens and lawns, which they acknowledged during the hearing and apologised for. They did say that they did their best to scrub and clean. While the landlord obtained quotes from third parties for cleaning, the owner did the cleaning work themselves. Therefore, they are entitled to recover some compensation for their time and materials but are not entitled to recover the quoted amount because they did not incur those costs.
I have determined that the amounts ordered are fair and reasonable in the circumstances. I have included the cleaning claims for curtains and carpet in one of the bedrooms, although these claims were not articulated in the original application. However, I note that the landlord withdrew some other claims (carpet replacement), and the tenants accepted the cleaning was required.
The landlord also had to replace light bulbs which the tenants accepted.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Where damage is proved and results in items being replaced, I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord withdrew their claim for carpet replacement.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy, and I find it was more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage which I find was likely careless: a. Outside step stringers chewed by dogs and had to be replaced which involved dismantling the treads, replacing the stringers, and then fitting stairs back together. The cost to repair was $638.27. No depreciation has been applied given that the stairs should last a lifetime. b. The toilet seat cover had a crack and required replacement. The toilet was 14 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life of a toilet is 50 years. I have reduced the replacement cost of $214.18 by 28% (14/50 years) for depreciation and award $154. c. The thermostat cover was missing, and shower seals required replacement because of mould damage. The replacement costs of $154.72 are proved. d. Various walls, door frames, stairs, wardrobe doors and the front door were damaged during the tenancy with dog claw scratches and chew marks; and some dents where the wall gib and paper has pulled away. The landlord obtained a quote for the work of $1056 plus GST but the owner decided to do the work themselves. Therefore, they are entitled to recover some compensation for their time and materials but are not entitled to recover the quoted amount because they did not incur those costs. The owner provided evidence that she spent $226.60 on materials from Resene and she believes she spent a further 15-20 hours doing the repair work including plastering, sanding and patch painting. I award $750 in total to cover labour and materials which I consider fair and reasonable in the circumstances. This also covers compensation for scratches on the front cedar door which the landlord has yet to remedy. No depreciation has been applied to paint work because it was only patch painting areas repaired not full redecoration. e. The central vacuum system was blocked. The vacuum specialist determined that the telescopic wand and floor tool were both severely blocked and the floor tool was rusted indicating the vacuum has been used to pick up water. The accessories need to be replaced at a quoted cost of $225. I am satisfied on the evidence that the blockage likely occurred during the tenancy. The vacuum system is 14 years old and the accessories should be fully depreciated. However, I consider the landlord is entitled to some compensation for the unintended early replacement. I award $45 being 20% of the replacement costs.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord has expressed their view that the tenants were overall good tenants and agreed to most of the claims apart from one or two queries which is reasonable. They consider that the tenants should be granted name suppression because there was no intentional or deliberate damage caused by them. The tenants also seek suppression.
Section 95A(1) RTA provides that Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Conversely, where a party does not “wholly or substantially succeed” suppression should not be granted.
However, section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published.
Generally, there is a presumption that there is public interest in publishing the identities of parties who breach the RTA or their tenancy agreement so that future tenants and landlords are forewarned.
The issue here is whether there are factors that might rebut the presumption of publication. Some of the more serious damage was caused by the tenants’ 2 dogs who were at the tenancy with the landlord’s consent. Both parties acknowledge that the tenants offered (and the landlord accepted) an extra $50/week above the advertised rent in order to secure the tenancy because the landlords were not at first keen to permit 2 dogs and the tenants’ large family. The rent was in advance for the entire tenancy until the end, when there was some confusion about the end date. I am also satisfied that damage was not caused deliberately or intentionally by the tenants. More importantly they were candid in their evidence at the hearing and quick to accept responsibility where appropriate. It was also not unreasonable for the parties to have some reasonable queries about liability for issues determined by the Tribunal. Also, in this case the landlord will be fully reimbursed for the claims from the bond. The tenants have also defended some of the claims and will receive a portion of their bond back.
After careful consideration of all the above factors, I am satisfied that there is no public interest in publishing the names of the tenants. Suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5231031 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5231031 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions